Apostolic Succession

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

In Christianity, the doctrine of Apostolic Succession (or the belief that the Church is 'apostolic') maintains that the Christian Church today is the spiritual successor to the original body of believers in Christ composed of the Apostles. Different Christian denominations interpret this doctrine in different ways.

In episcopal churches, the Apostolic Succession is understood to be the basis of the authority of bishops (the episcopate). Specifically in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, the Apostolic Succession as passed on through Saint Peter is also the basis for the specific claim of papal primacy. Within the Anglican Communion this is seen more as a symbolic precedence, not unlike the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople. In any event, all these communions recognize Apostolic Succession as the determining criterion of a particular group's legitimacy as a catholic Church.

Contents

[edit] Mainstream Christianity

[edit] Catholic and Orthodox Churches

The Roman Catholic Church (including its rites), Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Independent Catholic, Anglican Church and some others hold that apostolic succession is maintained through the consecration of their bishops in unbroken personal succession back to the apostles. In Catholic and Orthodox theology, the unbrokenness of apostolic succession is significant because of Jesus Christ's promise that the "gates of Hades" (Matthew 16:18) would not prevail against the Church, and his promise that he himself would be with the apostles to "the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20). According to this interpretation, a complete disruption or end of such apostolic succession would mean that these promises were not kept, as would an apostolic succession which, while formally intact, completely abandoned the teachings of the Apostles and their immediate successors; as, for example, if all the bishops of the world agreed to abrogate the Nicene Creed or to repudiate the Bible.

Both Orthodox and Catholics believe that each of their teachings today is the same as or is in essential harmony with the teaching of the first apostles, although each might deny this about the other, at least where the teachings of each are in conflict. This form of the doctrine was formulated by Irenaeus of Lyons in the Second Century, in response to certain Gnostics. These Gnostics claimed that Christ or the Apostles passed on some teachings secretly, or that there were some secret apostles, and that they (the Gnostics) were passing on these otherwise secret teachings. Irenaeus responded that the identity of the original Apostles was well known, as was the main content of their teaching and the identity of the apostles' successors. Therefore, anyone teaching something contrary to what was known to be apostolic teaching was not, in any sense, a successor to the Apostles or to Christ.

Roman Catholics recognize the validity of the apostolic successions of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Old Catholic, and some Independent Catholic Churches. The Eastern Orthodox do not receive Anglican or Catholic priests into their Churches without Chrismation or Orthodox Baptism. Eastern Orthodoxy does not commune (share Holy Communion with) non-Orthodox, without their renunciation during Chrismation, of the teachings of the Papal (or heterodox) Church. This has been the practice, though never uniformly implemented, for several centuries.

[edit] Other Churches

Some Lutheran Churches, the Churches of the Porvoo Communion, and the Old Catholic Church (which is also in communion with the Anglican Communion) also believe that they ordain their bishops in the apostolic succession in line from the apostles.

Pope Leo XIII stated, in his 1896 bull Apostolicae Curae that the Roman Catholic Church believes specifically that the Anglican Church's consecrations are "absolutely invalid and utterly void" because of changes made to the rite of consecration under Edward VI, thus denying that Anglicans participate in the apostolic succession. A reply of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York (1896) countered Pope Leo's arguments.

The language of Leo's statement was reinforced in the accompanying commentary to Ad Tuendam Fidem:

With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations... (Doctrinal Commentary by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger accompanying Ad Tuendam Fidem, a Motu Proprio statement of Pope John Paul II, 18 May 1998)

In addition to a line of historic transmission, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches additionally require that a hierarch maintain Orthodox Church doctrine, which they hold to be that of the Apostles, as well as communion with other Orthodox bishops. The Eastern Orthodox have permitted clergy ordained by Catholic and Anglican bishops to be rapidly ordained within Orthodoxy. However, this is a matter of ekonomia and not recognition of Apostolic Succession, although in some cases, Roman Catholic priests entering Eastern Orthodoxy have been received by "vesting" and have been allowed to function immediately within Orthodoxy as priests.

The Armenian Apostolic Church, which is one of the Oriental Orthodox churches, recognizes Catholic episcopal consecrations without qualification (and that recognition is reciprocated).

Bishops in the United Methodist Church do not claim to be within the historic episcopate in the same way as Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox bishops. They do, however, claim a corporate ("connectional") and theological form of Apostolic succession, and are not adverse to ecumenical acts which would further establish their ministry within the historic episcopate, though such would have to be accomplished without repudiating or otherwise questioning the validity of their current orders and ministries. Methodist episcopal succession derives from John Wesley, who was an ordained presbyter of the Church of England but not himself a bishop and thus not officially authorized to consecrate others. Wesley justified his practice of ordaining bishops (which he called "general superintendents") and elders (i.e., presbyters) for the methodists in the new United States of America in 1784 by appealing to a perceived need and by citing a minority opinion among the early Church Fathers (and an ancient precedent from the Church of Alexandria) which held that presbyters ("priests" or "elders") could, at least collectively, indeed ordain other such presbyters and even consecrate, or "set apart" bishops in certain emergency situations. Based upon this argument, the United Methodist Church understands all of its Elders, not just its Bishops, as being part of an Apostolic succession of the entire body (or "conference") of ministers: "In ordination, the church affirms and continues the apostolic ministry through persons empowered by the Holy Spirit." (Book of Discipline paragraph 303). In other words, they understand apostolic succession as being rooted within the Presbyterate. This does not mean, however, that all elders may ordain; quite the contrary, only those elders who have been elected and consecrated as bishops can further the apostolic succession through the ordination of bishops, elders, and deacons within the United Methodist Church. In this way, the United Methodist episcopacy functions as if it were within the historic episcopate.

Accepting, but moving beyond, this position a few Methodists do affirm that their bishops stand in a form of the historic, as well as theological, Apostolic Succession (i.e., in the Anglican fashion); their argument is that Wesley's ordinations, and therefore the subsequent line of Methodist bishops, are legitimate due to the critical nature of the circumstances extant at that time. Some Methodists even make an appeal to the "Legend of Erasmus," which asserts that, while on a visit to London in 1763, the Greek Orthodox bishop of the Diocese of Arcadia, Crete, secretly consecrated Wesley to the episcopacy. That Wesley actually met with Bishop Erasmus during the bishop's visit to London is not questioned; what is questioned is that Erasmus did more than simply "confirm Wesley in his ministry among the methodists in England and America." When Wesley was asked if Erasmus had made him a bishop, he offered no personal response but, rather, took the unusual course of authorizing a representative to reply that he had not requested episcopal consecration within the Greek Orthodox line. Many take this as a sufficient denial, and it was enough to keep Wesley out of jail, but those who believe that Wesley was actually consecrated make the following arguments to the contrary: (1) Wesley personally remained silent on the subject, (2) Wesley took the unusual step of having someone to speak on his behalf, and (3) Wesley never actually denied being consecrated a bishop, what he denied was requesting consecration from Erasmus. This distinction may seem meaningless to us today, but it is actually quite substantive given the circumstances of the 1700s. Were Wesley actually consecrated a bishop by Erasmus, he would not have been able to publicly affirm such without falling prey to the stipulations of the English Acts of Supremacy (1534 & 1559). To keep from being charged with treason, and to keep his head, it is argued that Wesley skirted the question altogether by offering a "non-denial denial." Given the circumstances, the argument actually makes some sense: Wesley was asked if he had been made a bishop by Erasmus; his response was that he had not requested consecration ... which actually doesn't answer the original question! After all, episcopal consecration could have been Erasmus' idea, not Wesley's. If Wesley had affirmed that he had been made a bishop, or even if he had just confessed that he had requested consecration, he would have been placing himself in jeopardy of treason against the crown! Wesley was a self-professed Whig and a faithful "son of the English Church," to publicly violate the Oaths of Supremacy would have been entirely repugnant to him on both political and theological grounds ... not to mention that he was understandably fond of his own neck. Hence, the argument concludes that Wesley obfuscated the entire issue by distancing himself from the question and by answering in such a way as to deflect further inquiry. Despite the beliefs of many Methodists and other Anglicans -- beliefs which were finally articulated after Wesley's death -- it worked; while the question never died out entirely, Wesley remained a presbyter of the Church of England until the day he died. Contrary to the "Legend of Erasmus" stands the undeniable fact that, beginning with the American Revolution in the 1770s, Wesley did request episcopal consecration for several of his preachers and, indeed, for himself, so as to provide sacramental ministry for the Methodists in the break-away colonies. Had Wesley already been consecrated a bishop by Erasmus, why would he have requested such consecrations for others or for himself? Nevertheless, the "Legend of Erasmus" remained a very popular argument throughout much of the 1800s and, while still garnering a following among some proponents today, it is not accepted by a vast majority of Methodists nor even by most of those who affirm a form of Apostolicity for their bishops. (see the External Links below)

[edit] Apostolicity as doctrinal continuity

Most Protestant churches would deny that the apostolicity of the Church rests on an unbroken episcopacy. They generally hold that one important qualification of the apostles was that they were chosen directly by Jesus and that they witnessed the resurrected Christ. According to this understanding, the work of these twelve (and the Apostle Paul), together with the prophets of the twelve tribes of Israel, provide the doctrinal foundation for the whole church of subsequent history through the Scriptures of the Bible. To share with the apostles the same faith, to believe their word as found in the Scriptures, to receive the same Holy Spirit, is the only sense in which apostolic succession is meaningful, because it is in this sense only that men have fellowship with God in the truth (an extension of the Reformation doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura). The most meaningful apostolic succession for most Protestants, then, is the faithful succession of apostolic teaching. There is, of course, much disagreement among various Protestant churches about the exact content of apostolic teaching.

It is worth noting, however, that some Protestant charismatic churches include "apostles" among the offices that should be evident into modern times in a true church, though they never trace an historical line of succession.

Those who hold to the importance of episcopal apostolic succession would counter the above by appealing to the New Testament, which, they say, implies a personal apostolic succession (from Paul to Timothy and Titus, for example) and which states that Jesus gave the Apostles a "blank check" to lead the Church as they saw fit under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 18:18 and Acts Chapter 15, for example). They appeal as well to other documents of the very early Church, especially the Epistle of St. Clement to the Church at Corinth, written around 96 CE. In it, Clement defends the authority and prerogatives of a group of "elders" or "bishops" in the Corinthian Church which had, apparently, been deposed and replaced by the congregation on its own initiative. In this context, Clement explicitly states that the apostles both appointed bishops as successors and had directed that these bishops should in turn appoint their own successors; given this, such leaders of the Church were not to be removed without cause and not in this way. Further, proponents of the necessity of the personal apostolic succession of bishops within the Church point to the universal practice of the undivided early Church (up to 431 CE), from which, as organizations, the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian, and the Churches of the Anglican Communion are all directly descended.

At the same time, no defender of the personal apostolic succession of bishops would deny the importance of doctrinal continuity in the Church. As stated above, Irenaeus explicitly ties the two together.

[edit] Latter-day Saints (Mormons)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) has a similar, but unique position. Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ directs his church at all times through revelation in response to prayer. However, individuals are entitled to revelation only for that calling over which they have authority. They believe that everyone is entitled to revelation concerning themselves; a head of household is entitled to revelation for his or her family; a bishop has the authority to receive revelation concerning the congregation over which he presides (a ward). Only ordained apostles have the authority from the Lord to receive revelation for doctrine for the entire church. An example of what Mormons call church-wide apostolic revelation can be found in Acts 10:1-48 where Peter had prayed and received revelation from God that the gospel could now go forward to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. Although the Mormon Church is at times compared to the Gnostics, who felt free to modify existing scriptures, this restriction greatly limits how existing doctrine can be modified. In general, a doctrinal change must be proposed by the President / Prophet, approved by the General Authorities, and sustained by the general body of the church before becoming official doctrine.

Hence, Latter-day Saints have a different interpretation than Catholics of the scripture where Christ says "upon this rock I will build my church":

"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Matthew 16:13-18

Mormons believe that when Christ asked his disciples who they think he is, Peter had the right answer because he prayed and received revelation: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." They believe that when Christ said "upon this rock I will build my church", the rock of which he was speaking was revelation. Mormons believe that certain aspects of the church will change over time. For example, at one time Christ said not to preach to the Gentiles, and later Peter was given a revelation when it was time to start.[1] Mormons believe that the need for constant ongoing revelation is critical to conduct the affairs of the church.

The LDS Church believes that Christ chose apostles and gave them the authority to receive revelation for the church by the laying on of hands. They further believe that the apostles passed this authority onto others by choosing and ordaining new apostles by the laying on of hands (such as Paul and Matthias). Those individuals then had the appropriate authority to receive revelation for and officiate over the church in that office at that time:

"And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."
Acts 1:24-26

Mormons believe that an apostasy occurred, where the apostolic authority was taken from the earth at some time after the original apostles. The LDS church refers to the resultant loss of revelation and falling away from the teachings of Jesus Christ as the Great Apostasy. Latter-day Saints believe that this was predicted when Amos said that there would be a "famine of hearing the words of the Lord" in Amos 8:11, and by Paul when he was talking about the second coming "that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

The LDS Church maintains that the authority from God needed to be restored to the earth, which took place when God the Father and His son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph Smith, Jr. near Palmyra, New York in 1820 and called Joseph as a prophet to restore Christ's church to the earth with correct doctrines and practices.

Mormons believe that near the time that Joseph formally organized the church in 1830, the apostles Peter, James and John appeared to Joseph, laid their hands on Joseph and restored to him the apostolic authority to govern the church.[2], and that Joseph was visited by other heavenly messengers at different times, each one conferring upon him the particular authority or keys for which they had stewardship. For example, the LDS church maintains that John the Baptist restored the Aaronic Priesthood, Peter James and John restored the Melchizedek Priesthood, with other heavenly messengers such as Moses and Elijah restoring the keys to the gathering of Israel and the sealing power of Elijah. They believe that Joseph was given the authority like the apostles of old, to confer to others specific priesthood authority by the laying on of hands. They further believe that all of the various keys of this authority have been and are passed on to worthy, male members of the LDS Church according to their particular offices. In this way, Latter-day Saints claim that apostolic authority was restored to the earth through the original twelve apostles and apostolic succession continues today through the ordination of new apostles as the older apostles pass away.

[edit] Jehovah's Witnesses

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that apostolic succession is an erroneous doctrine. They find support for this teaching in a publication of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society used by the Witnesses in door-to-door visits entitled Reasoning from the Scriptures. Three of these lines of reasoning concern the doctrine of apostolic succession as it specifically pertains to the Roman Catholic Church: 1) Peter was not the "rock" upon which the 'church' was built; [3] 2) there is no evidence Peter was in Rome; [4] and, 3) the claimed line of successors from Peter to the Pope is questionable. [5] Relating to the doctrine generally, they would contrast the replacement of Judas Iscariot and the death of the apostle James. The account in the Acts of the Apostles names Matthias as successor to Judas. Acts does not mention any successor being named for the faithful apostle James. [6]

[edit] See also

[edit] Sources and external links

This article incorporates text from the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia.

[edit] References

  1. ^ Acts 10
  2. ^ Covenant 27:12
  3. ^ Reasoning From the Scriptures pp 37-44
  4. ^ ibid
  5. ^ ibid
  6. ^ (Acts 12:2; Insight on the Scriptures pg. 129 Vol. I)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/p/o/Apostolic_Succession_e4cf.html"